Posted on 12/27/2007 9:16:45 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
By the way, if you are only concerned with his false record of voting NO against ear-marks he wrote into the bill, I see your point.
But if you were concerned about his REAL record of writing and passing ear-marks like all the others, then like me, you would see him for the fraud he is...
You spout nothing but rhetoric.
No, you have me confused with a guy who says one thing but does another... that would be your candidate...
Please help me understand this better, honestly. I will use an analogy - feel free to post one back to me. Let’s say that in my small town they are trying to pass a law forcing me to give money to build or improve recreational facilities. I, along with many others, fight against this law but realize it is a lost cause. I would at least try to get some form of that money back by “earmarking” it if I could, for things that benefited me, whatever my interests might be. Wouldn’t you? I would be a hypocrite for that?
What other practices are there where he contradicts himself for political expediency?
1) He says Iraq is an unconstitutional war on the basis of two facts, a) it is an “undeclared” war and b) it was “preemptive” in that Iraq did not attack the U.S.
Yet he voted FOR war in Afghanistan, which was also “undeclared” by congress, and in a country which did not attack the U.S.
Is an “undeclared war” against a nation which did not attack the U.S. “unconstitutional” or isn’t it?
2) He claims to be pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-individual resposnibility and pro-family. Yet he voted against requiring parental consent for minors seeking and abortion, including across state lines. How does one make these votes sound pro-life or pro-family?
3) He knows that he can not abolish taxes, the FBI or the IRS. Yet this is a centerpiece of his campaign. Does he not know that a President alone has not such powers, that congress and half of America are opposed to these ideas, or is he just lying to his supporters and getting them all fired up with rhetoric he can never implement?
Let's start here... If you have real answers (not excuses) for these, we’ll try some more...
1) He says Iraq is an unconstitutional war on the basis of two facts, a) it is an “undeclared” war and b) it was “preemptive” in that Iraq did not attack the U.S.
Yet he voted FOR war in Afghanistan, which was also “undeclared” by congress, and in a country which did not attack the U.S.
Is an “undeclared war” against a nation which did not attack the U.S. “unconstitutional” or isn’t it?
2) He claims to be pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-individual resposnibility and pro-family. Yet he voted against requiring parental consent for minors seeking and abortion, including across state lines. How does one make these votes sound pro-life or pro-family?
3) He knows that he can not abolish taxes, the FBI or the IRS. Yet this is a centerpiece of his campaign. Does he not know that a President alone has not such powers, that congress and half of America are opposed to these ideas, or is he just lying to his supporters and getting them all fired up with rhetoric he can never implement?
Let's start here... If you have real answers (not excuses) for these, we’ll try some more...
1) He says Iraq is an unconstitutional war on the basis of two facts, a) it is an “undeclared” war and b) it was “preemptive” in that Iraq did not attack the U.S.
Yet he voted FOR war in Afghanistan, which was also “undeclared” by congress, and in a country which did not attack the U.S.
Is an “undeclared war” against a nation which did not attack the U.S. “unconstitutional” or isn’t it?
2) He claims to be pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-individual resposnibility and pro-family. Yet he voted against requiring parental consent for minors seeking and abortion, including across state lines. How does one make these votes sound pro-life or pro-family?
3) He knows that he can not abolish taxes, the FBI or the IRS. Yet this is a centerpiece of his campaign. Does he not know that a President alone has not such powers, that congress and half of America are opposed to these ideas, or is he just lying to his supporters and getting them all fired up with rhetoric he can never implement?
Let's start here... If you have real answers (not excuses) for these, we’ll try some more...
Our system of taxation existed long before RP decided to run for any office. He entered the game under the rules he plays under.
Like all other politicians who use exactly the same justifications for pet projects back home, Ron Paul has introduced federal spending bills for his district.
However, he is the only one that I am aware of, who has built a campaign on the notion that he has voted against every ear-mark, even federal aid for hurricane victims, while at the same time, writing ear-marks into bills he knew would pass with or without his vote and hiding behind a NO vote.
We have all heard him talk about NEVER voting for an ear-mark in his life, which appears to be true. But when did he ever tell us that he was still adding ear-marks to bills, just like everyone else, and taking money from the federal treasury for pet projects back home, just like all others?
Bottom line - he’s a fraud on this and several other issues.
In reading your post replies, one can’t help but realize there are folks who have a difficult time understanding the English language. They see and read things that are not there,then offer a comment that makes little to no sense.
Don’t forget to get your green card renewed after the first of the year.
That’s what I was afraid of, brain dead.
I must say, for a Paulestinian, your attempt to shift the discussion away from your fraudulent candidate by ignoring the discussion and insulting the messenger, is lacking. Paulestinians are some of the best rhetorical name-callers on the web today. You must have skipped class...
or maybe flunked?
Well, now that more Americans are learning what a complete fraud your candidate is, I can understand your pain.
You should have done your homework to begin with. Most of us figured out he was a fraud months ago.
He doesn't "propose" anything. His constituents ask and they shall receive. That's what Congresscritters do, they look after their district.
then it could not pass. Yes, the money would go elsewhere - BUT the gynocologist would have the high ground.
Paul has already captured both the high and moral ground by pointing out how ridiculous the system is. That's why he's advocating for the abolishment of the income tax while the other statists want to rink-a-dink around with the tax code. No IRS = No more earmarks or pork, people would keep their money. Duh
And his district would defeat him at the first opportunity. I hope he does not get reelected in his district. Then maybe the 72 year old can go bug a retirement community somewhere
ROFL. You guys have been calling Paul's defeat like a bunch of Baghdad Bobs. If Paul doesn't get nominated, he's a shoo-in for his Congressional seat. Chris Peden couldn't beat Bob Dole, for crying out loud.
The anectodal evidence says otherwise. He's raised nearly $19 million for the 4Q so far. Lots of people have registered Republican just to vote for Paul. I don't know about you, but Code Pinkers and Troofers ain't got that much money.
If Paul places in the top three in IA, you can pretty much stick a fork into all of the other candidates.
You're getting warmer. Now let's say that you are opposed to recreational facilities of any kind as they are wrong. But you see them coming, so you decide to ask for a walking trail because secretly, you'd like to have one.
That's right, it's hypocrisy. Which we expect from politicians, but were told was what set Mr. Paul apart from the rest. He really believed what he said. Except for when he doesn't.
Come to me my babies...let me quell your pain!!
Ron pleads his 21st Amendment rights. He was drunk when he cast those votes.
It’s extremely easy for Run Paul to advocate those positions while campaigning, but it’s entirely a different matter once anyone gains the office of POTUS. You should know this by now, and not be taken in by his rhetoric. The fact that you’d sleep with the guy just for advocacy of those two positions tells me much about you.
Nailed it.
“Sadly his Jim Jones followers would follow this man gladly right off a cliff, if he told them it was in the constitution.”
Not exactly. Ron Paul would tell his followers that since cliffs were not “expressly mentioned” in the Constitution, they do not exist. At that point, they would follow...
Trying to change the subject does not erase Ron Paul’s deception.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.